Wolf Delisting Redux A Ruse And A Sham

From the Western Institute for Study of the Environment:

We reported [here] that the US Fish and Wildlife Service intends to delist Rocky Mountain wolves again, probably at the end of the month. The delisting will include all Rocky Mountain wolves except those in Wyoming.

The rationale for excluding Wyoming is that they have not written an adequate state wolf management plan. From USFWS “talking points”: <<<Read the rest >>>

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Did Feds Address Court Rulings For Wolf Delisting?

Yesterday Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett announced the intentions of the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the gray wolf from protection of the Endangered Species Act in the Western Great Lakes region and portions of the Northern Rocky Mountains. Following legal procedures, the USFWS will post the Final Rule in the Federal Registry next week and then 30 days thereafter, the rule takes effect.

The process of attempting to get the wolf delisted has been a confusing mess, mired in lawsuits, twisted out of shape by frustrating and puzzling rulings by judges and just as disturbing was the direction or seemingly lack thereof, the Feds took in dealing with the issue.

When looking at the whole picture of wolf delisting that includes both the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains regions, according to court rulings there were three distinct issues the Feds had to address in order for the courts to be satisfied (perhaps) and allow delisting – Wyoming’s wolf management plan, genetic connectivity/exchange and the USFWS being able to create a Distinct Population Segment and delist a species simultaneously. Let’s address them one at a time.

Create and Delist

This past September 2008, in a federal court in the District of Columbia, Judge Paul Friedman told the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that because the Endangered Species Act was unclear about the use and definition of Distinct Population Segment, he felt the Service did not have the legal authority to create a DPS while simultaneously changing the status of the species recognized within that DPS.

Consequently and for no other obvious reason, Judge Friedman ordered the wolf placed back under federal protection and required the Service to provide a better explanation of the use of DPS.

What is expected to be part of the Final Rule next week is a complete history of the Service’s use of Distinct Population Segments. The preliminary information I have indicates several pages of analysis and history of DPS. Included in that explanation will be examples of other species where the Service created and delisted or changed status of certain species. Examples of that are the grizzly bear, Colombian whitetail deer, brown pelican, American crocodile, among others.

We can only assume this will satisfy the courts.

Wyoming, the Lone Wolf

Further out west, on February 27, 2008, the USFWS published its Final Rule and officially removed the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves from the protected species list of the Endangered Species Act. It was short lived as was expected. On July 18, 2008, Judge Donald Molloy issued a preliminary injunction placing the gray wolf back under protection of the federal government.

One of the two issues expressed by Judge Molloy was that Wyoming’s Wolf Management Plan, approved by the state and approved by the feds, was inadequate to sustain a viable wolf population.

With the recent announcement to delist the wolf, Wyoming has been left out of the delisting process. This is how the USFWS handled the Wyoming wolf management plans they had approved of previously.

In light of the July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.

Genetic Connectivity

The second issue Judge Molloy had difficulty dealing with is known as genetic connectivity or genetic exchange. This is when wolves from one area disburse into the areas of other wolves and undertake breeding, believed by some to be essential to the long term sustainability of a wolf population.

The preliminary information I have indicates that the Feds will offer a lengthy explanation about what role genetic exchange/connectivity had in the scientific approach to wolf recovery. In their explanation they will tell us that genetic exchange was discussed and that the evolution of the importance of genetic exchange changes very little from 1987 to present. They also intend to show that from the beginning, the Service has said all along that they believed genetic exchange would be verified by showing natural dispersal of the animals and if that wasn’t occurring then they would resort to man-assisted dispersal.

We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9).

The Final Rule to be published more than likely will reaffirm the Feds’ commitment to ensuring genetic exchange.

Development of the Service’s recovery goal clearly recognized that the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments and/or by human-assist migration management in the unlikely event it was ever required.

Essentially what we see is that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service really hasn’t changed anything in regards to genetic connectivity. They’ve only clarified, and in my opinion beefed up, what role genetic exchange/connectivity has in wolf recovery in hopes of satisfying the courts.

This shows me one thing very clearly. When the USFWS went to court, it was no secret that one of the issues being discussed at length on more than one occasion was genetic connectivity, yet the USFWS was ill prepared to explain and present what they will attempt to explain in the upcoming Final Rule.

Let’s hope they are better prepared this time because we know the lawsuits will begin and every aspect discussed in the past and any new ones the animal rights and environmentalist can dig up, will be dragged before the judge.

Personally, I look for nothing to change.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

More Confusion On Feds “Distinct Population Segment” Creations

The Western Institute for Study of the Environment (WISE) has a story this morning covering information they found on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Federal Register that officially places the gray wolf back on the Endangered Species Act list. This includes the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Oregon and Washington. Areas of Idaho south of I-90, southern Montana and all of Wyoming remain part of a “Nonessential Experimental Population”. Minnesota’s wolves remain listed as “threatened”.

According to the article, the USFWS was forced into doing this because of three court rulings. Those rulings, along with returning the wolf to federal protection, also force the USFWS to eliminate any Distinct Population Segments they created within the states listed, in order to delist the wolves. It was the ruling of Judge Paul Friedman in a Washington, D.C. federal court that said the USFWS did not have the authority to create these DPSs.

Where does that leave us in dealing with endangered species then? Certainly if the courts ruled that the USFWS can’t create smaller DPSs, then it would only seem logical that they don’t have the authority to create any DPSs, expand or modify existing DPSs. Friedman’s ruling also would have to bring into question as to whether any existing Distinct Population Segments are legal.

I’m am having difficulty accessing the Final Rule on this at the registry. All I have for information on this right now is what I found at my friends over at WISE. I’ll report more on this and provide a copy of the Final Rule once I’m able to get my hands on it.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Is It Against The Law To Carry A Knife?

This article comes from RTT News:

1/2/2008 12:04:38 PM A man wielding a knife was arrested inside a campaign headquarters of Democratic presidential front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton in Decorah, Iowa, police said Wednesday.

Christopher James Faris, 42, of Decorah was arrested Monday evening and charged with carrying weapons and with third-degree harassment. Faris was in the Winneshiek County jail on Wednesday, held on a $5,000 bond, The Associated Press reported.

There’s little to go on here but I sure do have a couple of questions or fifty. The term “wielding” is used in the opening paragraph to describe what this man was doing with a knife (described as a hunting knife). Wield, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, means in this case, 1. to handle a weapon. 2. To exercise or exert power or influence.

The article makes little sense actually, perhaps because it is riddled with terminology meant to scare the hell out of people instead of tell what actually happen. First of all, why was it a hunting knife? Was it because this took place in Iowa? We don’t know.

Second, the article first states he was “wielding” a knife but later says nothing happened.

”He just came into the headquarters, just mainly staff was there. There were no comments made about Hillary Clinton at all or nothing like that,” Courtney said. “It was a short episode. He left even before the officers arrived.”

So, what happened? What did he do? Who is this guy? This might explain some of it.

“He’s one of these guys we’ve dealt with before in town here. We’re aware of his behaviors.”

More questions then. What is his past record? Because it seems this guy was holding the knife in his hand it became a weapon? And as such he was charged with third-degree harassment?

The police chief said he had no details on what the knife was only that someone had described it as a hunting knife.

It doesn’t matter whose campaign headquarters this guy might have gone into, the questions would still be here. A quick trip around the Internet to see what the chatter is and I’m finding more than a reasonable amount of talk of another “staged” event at a Clinton campaign headquarters – just prior to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary where the last Clinton campaign headquarters was allegedly going to be blown up.

If this guy’s a whack job get him off the street. I want to know what the knife was he was carrying or supposedly carrying in his hand. The police said he didn’t do anything with it. He was just there.

If this is a staged event, perhaps a second one, then let’s get the other whack job off the streets.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Pittman-Robertson Act Provides Funds For Hunter Safety

On Monday of this week I reported that eight states (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio) were going to request grant monies available through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, also known as Pittman-Robertson, in order to conduct studies on tree stand safety. The article I wrote generated some discussion and comments, one coming from reader MadJack.

Yes the P/R Act was to improve hunting & wildlife habitat, NOT to WASTE in an attempt to control hunters & how they hunt! I believe this would be a direct violation of the Pitman Robertson Act as well as very unlawful.

More Government waste!

While I tend to agree with MadJack, I wasn’t aware that revenues generated through PR were used via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund programs for hunter safety and education. According to PR Act Title 16, Chapter 5B, section 669h, $8 million will be apportioned back to each state for certain hunter safety programs.

Of the revenues covered into the fund, $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, shall be apportioned among the States in the manner specified in section 669c(c) \1\ of this title by the Secretary of the Interior and used to make grants to the States to be used for–

(A) in the case of a State that has not used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) \1\ of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title–
(i) the enhancement of hunter education programs, hunter and sporting firearm safety programs, and hunter development programs;
(ii) the enhancement of interstate coordination and development of hunter education and shooting range programs;
(iii) the enhancement of bow hunter and archery education, safety, and development programs; and
(iv) the enhancement of construction or development of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, and the updating of safety features of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges; and

(B) in the case of a State that has used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) \1\ of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title, any use authorized by this chapter (including hunter safety programs and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges).

An act that was originally designed for the protection of wildlife and habitat, it has been amended many times in order that these funds can be used for other programs not directly related to it original purpose. As I understand the Act, monies are apportioned back to each state for the specific purposes described concerning hunter safety and education programs. If that money has been used up, USFWS grants additional monies collected via PR for further hunter education and safety programs.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Michigan And Iowa With Deer Harvest Issues

During the deer hunting seasons nationwide, it is normal to hear of states struggling to get harvest numbers where they want to due mainly to bad weather. But Michigan is scratching their heads at the moment trying to figure out where all the deer hunters went.

There are no official reports out yet but the Michigan DNR is saying that Michigan sold about the same number of hunting licenses as in the past. They also are reporting that deer harvest rates were up by about 6% in the Upper Peninsula, down 6% in the upper lower peninsula and down 7% in the lower lower peninsula.

Other unofficial reports statewide seems to indicate that hunter participation was low everywhere. A couple weeks ago, Eric Sharp, outdoor writer for the Detroit Free Press, asked where all the hunters were. DNR officials are perplexed and don’t seem to have any rational explanation for that.

Meanwhile, over in Iowa, the Department of Natural Resources is considering an emergency statewide deer hunt because harvest numbers have been so low. To this point in the season, hunters have taken 34,000 fewer deer than was projected. If the commission approves the emergency hunt, it will be statewide and any hunters with unfilled tags will be able to fill them with antlerless deer only.

Iowa officials blame poor weather for the lousy success rate.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Iowa Planning A Hunting/Trapping Season For Bobcat

Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources is proposing to open up a season for bobcats to run from November 3 to January 31. This season would be for hunting and trapping and would extend to these dates or until a maximum of 150 cats were taken. The season would close after that.

Not all of Iowa would be open to hunting and trapping of the cat. It would be limited to 21 of Iowa’s 99 counties. Those 21 counties are primarily in the southern part of the state where bobcat populations are the highest.

As part of the process, there will be a public hearing in Des Moines on May 30, 2007.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Who Owns Iowa’s Deer?

There seems to be a bit of confusion along with hypocrisy when it comes to making a determination as to who owns and has what rights on the deer population.

Kevin Kelly, the Tipton Christmas tree farmer who was recently found guilty of illegally killing a deer that was eating his trees, says what many other Iowa residents say that they’re not sure who owns the deer but they sure know who collects all the money associated with deer – the Department of Natural Resources.

If you think I’m kidding, check out this article in the DesMoines Register and see how much of it makes sense.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Iowa Tree Farmer Has Something To Say

Christmas tree farmer Kevin Kelly, found guilty for shooting a deer out of season and shooting a deer with a rifle, is frustrated. He says that every year the deer show up and start destroying his trees.

“We have two or three a year that show up in the summertime and they just seem to move into my nursery. And there’s just nothing you can do about it during that time of year,” says Kelly. “We have about 8 acres of seedling trees out here.”

He’s frustrated because he says he keeps asking the DNR to do something about it but they won’t. Kelly decided to take matters into his own hands.

This last incident happened in June of last year. After shooting the deer, he called the DNR to tell them what he did and to come get the deer. Kelly says the DNR picked up the deer on June 2 and never charged him until September 10. Kelly says by then, the obvious “substantial” evidence of destruction had grown over.

The jury found Kelly guilty after the judge instructed them that they had to determine if “substantial” damage had been done to his property. That obviously didn’t happen.

Many gardeners and farmers across Iowa are interested in this case as many of them have similar problems with deer.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Kevin Kelly Found Guilty

So much for being able to protect your personal property from destruction by wildlife……sort of.

Kevin Kelly, a Christmas tree farmer from Iowa, shot a doe deer last year that was eating his trees. He called the authorities and told them what he did. He was charged with shooting a deer out of season and shooting a deer with a rifle, which is obviously against the law in Iowa. After three days of testimony, it took the jury less than an hour to find him guilty on both counts BUT…..

According to Kelly’s lawyer, the case did establish that Kelly would have had the right to kill the deer if he could prove that the deer was causing “substantial” damage to his property. That’s a bit of gray area there I think but not according to the jury.

The jury took instructions from the judge who told them their decision had to be based on whether on not the defense showed there was substantial damage. Obviously the defense failed to do that.

The prosecution pointed out the Kelly had other options. One option as stated by prosecutor Jeff Renander, was to install an electric fence. He could also have erected an 12-foot high brick wall encompassing his entire estate but who would pay for that? Installing an electric fence isn’t a viable option if you can’t afford to have it done. I have no idea whether Kelly could have or couldn’t have as it is really immaterial. An individual’s rights shouldn’t be determined by one’s ability to pay for that right.

The second option that was discussed was Kelly’s option to apply for a special DNR permit to shoot the deer. Even the prosecution used the term “might have been eligible”. The bottom line there is Kelly did not apply.

The good news is for property owners, the case established that one can protect their property providing they can prove substantial damage. The bad news is, who determines what substantial damage is? Kelly’s attorney said he doesn’t think his client will be shooting anymore deer unless substantial damage has been done. I wonder how much is substantial and is that too based on an individuals wealth?

The judge sentenced Kelly to pay a $100 fine for each count and pay $1,500 restitution for the value of the deer he killed.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Kevin Kelly Trial – Day One

Kevin Kelly, the tree farmer who shot a deer on his own property to protect his investment, is on trial for illegally shooting that deer. He says he has a Constitutional right to protect his business and property. He lawyer spells it out this way.

Brad Norton, Kelly’s lawyer, said his client had a right to protect his Christmas tree farm by shooting a deer that was eating his trees.

“The DNR thinks they can surpass the Constitution of the United States,” Norton said. “That’s not true.”

The Department of Natural Resources attorney sees it differently.

Assistant Cedar County Attorney Jeff Renander said Kelly might have qualified for a DNR program that would allow him to obtain special permits to shoot deer on his property eight months out of the year. “But he did not apply,” Renander said.

The trial will continue today.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Kevin Kelly, Iowa Tree Farmer Goes To Trial Today

Who is Kevin Kelly, tree farmer? Back in December I did an article about Kelly and I asked you to read about the story and be the judge and jury. In short, Kelly shot and killed deer on his property because he didn’t think the state was managing the deer good enough and he feels he has a right to protect his property – trees, which are his livelihood.

Kelly will go to trial today.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Gee “Whiz”!

I love a good joke. The DesMoines Register has a short little ditty that got me chuckling. Here it is.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is contemplating using wolf urine along the sides of highways in an effort to keep deer off the roads (“Officials Consider Using Wolf Urine Near Roads,” Feb. 1).

Since no wolves reside in Iowa, we don’t know if deer will be deterred by the scent.

There is, however, one deer predator that resides in large quantities in our state: men.

We can save money and solve our problem with the simple step of closing the men’s rooms at the rest stops and encouraging all male travelers to stop at their leisure by the side of the road.

We will eliminate the cost of cleaning the men’s rooms, and the men won’t have that distracting wait for the next rest stop.

- John Crowley,

Des Moines.

Now, tell me that didn’t make you laugh this morning.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Safe Sex For Deer

Perhaps not exactly that but I got your attention. T.M. Lindsey at Political Fallout, has a different take on Iowa’s idea to spend up to $1,000 a deer for contraception to help reduce a blossoming deer herd. Here’s a sample of his ideas.

Implement faith-based initiatives which promote abstinence over promiscuity. Deer should be raised with the notion that it’s okay to wait for their destined fill of buck shot or their fated front end collision with an urban assault vehicle – both of which will take them one step closer to their Creator.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

You Be The Judge And Jury

Here’s a chance for you to be the judge and jury. Granted, the only information you are going to have comes from this story in the DesMoines Register.

Kevin Kelly is a tree farmer. Deer eat his trees threatening to put him out of business. He claims the government (DNR) won’t take care of thinning the deer herd around his farm so he thins them himself. He has been trying for a few years now to be charged with the illegal shooting of the deer so the matter will end up in the courts and be straightened out once and for all.

Kelly basically claims this.

“The right of defense of person and property is a constitutional right and is recognized in the construction of all statutes,” the Supreme Court wrote in that Pottawattamie County case. “If in this case it was reasonably necessary for the defendant to kill the deer in question in order to prevent substantial injury to his property, such fact, we have no doubt would afford justification for the killing.”

The DNR says not so fast.

“If they have $1,000 worth of damage caused by deer I can enroll them in a program to allow them to kill additional deer,” Harris said. “I work with the landowners. I have as many as 60 deer permits for one landowner in Johnson County. I have a property owner in Benton County allowed to kill 40 does on a depredation license.”

As you can already surmise, this issue is not simple and the debate gets involved and interesting. Each side presents valid claims.

Kelly has a court date of March 19, 2007. While we wait, you be judge and jury. Read the article and render a decision based on the facts of the article as best you can.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »